# A Comprehensive Evaluation of Semantic Relation Knowledge of Pretrained Language Models and Humans

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.01131 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.01131/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 29 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Dec 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advances](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.12452/) (2021)
- [A Primer in BERTology: What we know about how BERT works](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.12327/) (2020)
- [Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.03368/) (2019)
- [Measuring and Improving Consistency in Pretrained Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.01017/) (2021)
- [Knowledgeable or Educated Guess? Revisiting Language Models as Knowledge Bases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09231/) (2021)
- [How Pre-trained Language Models Capture Factual Knowledge? A Causal-Inspired Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.16747/) (2022)
- [A Tale of a Probe and a Parser](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.01641/) (2020)
- [Can Prompt Probe Pretrained Language Models? Understanding the Invisible Risks from a Causal View](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.12258/) (2022)
- [Identifying Linear Relational Concepts in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.08968/) (2023)
- [KEML: A Knowledge-Enriched Meta-Learning Framework for Lexical Relation Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.10903/) (2020)
- [The Analysis of Synonymy and Antonymy in Discourse Relations: An interpretable Modeling Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.04479/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Semantic Abstraction for Natural Language Inference: a Methodological Framework for Discovering and Compensating Semantic Knowledge and Reasoning Gaps in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.26610/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recently, much work has concerned itself with the enigma of what exactly pretrained language models~(PLMs) learn about different aspects of language, and how they learn it. One stream of this type of research investigates the knowledge that PLMs have about semantic relations. However, many aspects of semantic relations were left unexplored. Generally, only one relation has been considered, namely hypernymy. Furthermore, previous work did not measure humans' performance on the same task as that performed by the PLMs. This means that at this point in time, there is only an incomplete view of the extent of these models' semantic relation knowledge. To address this gap, we introduce a comprehensive evaluation framework covering five relations beyond hypernymy, namely hyponymy, holonymy, meronymy, antonymy, and synonymy. We use five metrics (two newly introduced here) for recently untreated aspects of semantic relation knowledge, namely soundness, completeness, symmetry, prototypicality, and distinguishability. Using these, we can fairly compare humans and models on the same task. Our extensive experiments involve six PLMs, four masked and two causal language models. The results reveal a significant knowledge gap between humans and models for all semantic relations. In general, causal language models, despite their wide use, do not always perform significantly better than masked language models. Antonymy is the outlier relation where all models perform reasonably well. The evaluation materials can be found at https://github.com/hancules/ProbeResponses.